Latymer Upper

mummyitalia, I just have to say that you have got it exactly! You understand exactly what I've been trying to say is our difficulty choosing between LU and Harrodian, to quote you, "a nurturing school where you can be whoever you want to be." But current school insists that DC being so strong academically LU is the more appropriate place.

However, not happy with what I heard just today from friend whose DCs at LU have never been in a play there. As I feared, the standard is so high only a minority of students get the chance to do many of the offerings. My DC might end up not getting a chance to do theatre, some sports, because of the competition. Am sad, because I think in addition to sending our children to top schools for the best education and best chance to get into top universities etcetera etcetera, it's important that they be children while they are children and be exposed to things that they may never get a chance to do again in life.

DC may not be the next Alan Rickman, but I still want those opportunities during the school years. That is why I favoured Harrodian.

singers the school told me they were £16500! Hm...still, you get much more for your money with St Paul's and Westminster (i.e lunches, some music lessons) so the difference is marginal.
Seren I think you just need to decide whether you feel your son would be more comfortable being at the very top of his year in Harrodian, and not in the other - although obviously I don't know how bright he is, he could be top in LU, St Paul's and Westminster too! Obviously, your son will do well at either, however perhaps at LU he'll be pushed more and get more support. I do sympathise with the pastoral element - Harrodian appeals as a nurturing school where you can be whoever you want to be.
Don't forget the option of moving in sixth form to somewhere like LU or St Paul's if you felt Harrodian wasn't enough at A Level.
I hope you come to a decision soon without too much more stress!

StoicButStressed, the choice isn't between LU and Harrow, but LU and Harrodian. It's a very hard choice for us.

OK, fees info from websites:

Latymer: £15,705 (plus lunches on top so about £580 if your child takes lunches)
St Paul's: Yrs 7 and 8 (ie Colet Court) £15,729, Yrs 9+ £19,674 (including lunches)
Westminster: Yrs 7 and 8 (ie Under School) £15,114, Yrs 9+ £21,708

So quite a lot more than Latymer but not £8,000 a year - £4,000 for St P and £6k for Westminster, but for the first two years if going at 11+ cheaper at Westminster and the same at St Paul's with lunch included. And Westminster still has Saturday school so you get an extra half day a week for the price!

We did a spreadsheet a few years ago when we were making our decision factoring in things like school coach costs, meals, music lessons (very similar at most schools)....

Honestly, I should go and do something more useful as well.

I think all these schools get a reasonable amount of homework. For example, at Hampton a couple of years ago they were getting 3 subjects 3 nights a week and 4 subjects twice a week in Y7. My friends with children at Ibstock said they got loads of homework too.

I think, Rifraf, if you are looking at 11+ in some schools and 13+ in others the acceptance timetable is going to be different. If you had looked at 11+ into Colet Court or Westminster Under School as well as Latymer you would have found they all had the same acceptance deadline, so you wouldn't have found yourself in that position.

singers I must have wiped that little piece of info out of my memory...oh well! And finally with HW - I don't think St Paul's get that much more than Latymer...

Actually I've been looking at the fees and talking to Latymer parents - St Paul's include a great deal more in their annual fees, so at LU you end up paying closer to £19,000 a year (with music lessons, food, trips etc), and St Paul's is about £21,000 (I think). Westminster however is around £23,000. Latymer's fees have risen though from £13,000 in only the last 3 years so I don't know how much more expensive it will be.
As I said, in a couple of years there won't be much between them.

The Latymer science block can't possibly be newer than St Paul's new science block which is opening fully after Easter!

If your son has a strong preference you should definitely go with it as both are excellent schools.

Rifraf, your information about fees is slightly off as is info re homework.

Sorry didn't mean to write the 'social' part - was getting a bit ahead of myself! I think at the moment they're the same socially (of course) but in a few years perhaps will almost be the same academically. Hope I've explained myself better!
With regards to differing experiences - maybe I was choosing to look at certain things and not others? I do agree that it is slightly more diverse than others, however perhaps that's just because it's a co-ed school. Whenever I hear of people leaving however, they only leave to go to SPGS, St Paul's, Wellington, or Eton. Which perhaps shows its cohort of people.
I found it surprising too that Eton had a more diverse range! But I think it will be partly to do with international students and the fact they have just as many scholarship places as Latymer. The thing about LU is that they put great emphasis on the amount of bursaries and scholarships they give out (which I think is great and I'm not complaining) but every other 'public' school also has that many scholarships, i.e SPGS, St Pauls, Eton, Westminster. But I understand that that's the way they want the school to be publicised. All I know is that if one of the student's siblings don't go to Latymer, they seem to exclusively go to St Paul's, Westminster, Eton etc. So that's partly why I came to the conclusion that it is the same as these other 'posh' schools.
We were slightly silly in waiting until 13+ to move DS to these schools, as you say it would have been easier and cheaper to go for Westminster Under, Latymer and Colet Court in Year 6. But of course, we wanted him to continue his very caring education at his prep school (even if it wasn't that rigorous!). I think we are going to go for Latymer, as DS seems much keener on it and prefers the ultimately newer and better Science block (he loves Biology). As I've said before, there are only marginal differences between them, and by the time he does his public exams there'll be even less of a difference (academically I mean).
Sorry for the long post (I seem to be copying you RifRaf!)

Stoic, I think you're overreacting a little bit?

I admit starting with "thank you" was out of place given that your post was for the OP. Apologies and point taken!

But where did you get the idea that I was actually saying you hadn't done your job at home?! What do I know about you and your life? When I said "you" I meant it as in "one", i.e. as in "the parent" meaning all of us. It was meant in a general sense. Is that not a correct use of "you" in English, as in the French "vous"? If it's not, I do apologize and would appreciate the correction, English is not my mother tongue.
I did not intend to imply your DC were the "poor" ones as I frankly don't know about that, and I find it very strange that you found it offensive and patronising - God forbid I should assume your DC are the poor kids having to face the extra challenge. Ironically for you, I was actually talking about my DS.

As to your comment that anyone could move to Surrey if they really cared for their children education...Well, what can I say. Maybe you could, for a moment, imagine situations like having to live near an elderly parent who depends on us, or a move not being financially viable, or a commuting life being more expensive and maybe not viable because of professional nightshifts...etc etc. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up for reasons why every Londoner is not moving to Surrey, by far "the most affordable suburb" in the UK. Apart from the fact that many just don't want, because of the cultural life London offers their DC, which is also educating them. And please I AM not talking about/referring to/criticising you again. Each to their own.

In response to Stoic's comments, I just wanted to say that I was at Godolphin in the 80s and I don't recognise any of what s/he (?) says about the schools back then. There was no obvious anorexia at all, no more cliques than you'd expect to find in any school, and while some people used some drugs sometimes, there was no drug culture to speak of. I can't comment on the way they are now, except to say that LU is certainly one of the most competitive and highly sought after schools at 11 for those going private from our state primary. I haven't heard any rumours of these kinds on the local grapevine about either school, unlike some of the other local privates.

It would be interesting to come back to this thread in a couple of years and see how much LU had continued changing - that's why I'm not hesitant to send DS to LU over St Paul's, because by the time he would have done his A Levels or even GCSEs, Latymer would very nearly have caught up with it (both socially and academically).

By the way, the last head boy was actually the only black student in his year (all this comes from the friend I mentioned - please don't shoot the messenger!!)

Wow Rifraf, that was long! I think I was just trying to make the point of how much LUS is changing really, if he was a few years older then it would be a different decision. Now however, I feel that he will feel very similar at both schools - he would be top stream at both St Paul's and Latymer. With regards to the 'poshness' factor, I completely got the impression at open day that it was a 'rich kids' school, and that actually St Paul's was less glamorous and that the parents there were spending all their money on the education and nothing else, whereas it seems at LUS it's slightly different. Of course, there will be a range of wealth at all of these schools, and what we're debating here is the difference between wealthy and super-wealthy, which is totally unrealistic compared to the rest of the country! One of my closest friends has a son in Year 9 in Latymer, who is on a scholarship, and she is constantly going on about the 'poshness' and how wealthy everyone is. She also dislikes the apparent lack of diversity, and she says that compared to Eton (her DH went there - and my DS1!) there are many less black and Asian children. Of course, all of these differences are marginal, when one steps back and takes a look at these top schools, they are pretty similar in their outlook, and of course they're all friends with each other because of their various prep schools/family friends etc.

MummyItalia in the same way that the children who get straight A*s do wherever they go, including Chiswick School, the party kids find each other. The sporty types meet at county training sessions, musical at the Royal College etc.

Sorry ThatWas, but have only just clocked how absurdly 'snidey' and patronising your post directly to me was.

Vis your opening line of "thanks Stoic, however..." - it wasn't posted to or for you; it was for the OP and her Q.

Vis the: 'If you're scared your children will do drugs just because kids in the school do, then you haven't done your job well at home.... ...Whether being with rich kids will get to my Ds head or not, again, it will test the values I have taught him at home and his self-esteem and confidence. Eventually, all our DC will face all this, if not at school then in college. And Oxford is no exception - your DD will be able to tell you.

1: my DC's are (slightly unfortunately in some respects) the 'rich kids', so my obs re cliques/London Day Schools are objective observations - NOT on my kids being the 'poor' ones facing that extra challenge in any private school'
2: both DS1 (21) and DS2 (17) have ALREADY very clearly come across/been offered drugs, and thanks for the lecture but am pretty confident that I HAVE 'done my job at home well' - truly, WhereTF did that come from and why? Beyond unness and just makes you look pretty stupid.
3: I DIDN'T - and nor did I say I did - 'hate' my school; was UBER clear that there were aspects of it that I really, really, REALLY would NOT want my DC's to become embroiled in.
4: And you/we all have a choice - I moved out of London to Surrey precisely down to getting the right education for my DC's. You have that choice too (though may well involve a commute for someone), but if you choose not to take it that is entirely your right and your choice...

But DON'T pop up out of nowhere having snide digs at me just as I replied to OP with both the benefit of historical and contemporaneous knowledge of what SHE had asked for - ESP. given you know Jack about what you are actually lobbing at me. Just dumb, really really dumb.

OP, hope you make the choice you are comfortable with and agree it re the best 'fit' between child and school.

ThatWas 'So you swore you would not educate your DC privately but they are at a private school. There MUST be something you like better at the private school' - yup, there was ThatWas

It was the tiny classes; the vastly better staff:pupil ratio; the uber high level of pastoral care; the attention paid to DC's welfare as well as their 'results'. As 2 of my DC's were horrifically attacked (nothing to do with or at school/s; only relevance of schools is where I chose for them when moved given their then new VAST and very high needs); THAT was the driver of that choice.

Latymer at the point you mention it and now are two WHOLLY different entities, hence my bothering to post for the OP re my knowledge of it then and now. And trust me, I AM that Ma who has the MOST frank of conversations with my DCs from condoms to drugs to relationships to sex, so in total agreement with you on that one.

Thank you Stoic, however...
DH attended Latymer Upper at the same time you were at Godolphin (are you a mum?) and he came out in one piece and never having been a bully or been bullied, without any sense of entitlement, without having taken any drugs, a caring man, a socialist and a liberal thinker. At the time he was on a scholarship but about half the students were already paying fees - as it coincided with the abolition of the direct grant and the assisted places, etc. One of his best friends was very very rich. Who cares, they loved playing chess together. The pastoral care was good enough and it prepared him for life not being cuddled in cotton wool everyday.

What I am saying is, you obviously hated it, but many didn't. And that was then, and this is now. Every school in London takes bullying more seriously than they did in the eighties. The new Head at LU is very student oriented and has already implemented a new pastoral scheme.

Drugs and sex education starts at home. If you're scared your children will do drugs just because kids in the school do, then you haven't done your job well at home. They are going to live in a society where people take drugs and are on porn websites a lot of the time. Whether they do or don't will largely depend on the values you have taught them. They will also live in a society where there will always be people richer than them. Whether being with rich kids will get to my Ds head or not, again, it will test the values I have taught him at home and his self-esteem and confidence. Eventually, all our DC will face all this, if not at school then in college. And Oxford is no exception - your DD will be able to tell you.

So you swore you would not educate your DC privately but they are at a private school. There MUST be something you like better at the private school. Some of us are in London and London day schools is what we have. We try to choose the one that fits our child and our circumstances best and we get ready to be there for our child all the time.

And finally, you should see the girl cliques at our local comprehensive...

Whoops, forgot - whilst ALL kids have access to drugs in every school (& any parent who thinks otherwise is just deluded), my obs have been it way less so in the private schools that are NOT London Day Schools. Also, vis Oxbridge etc, DS2 has just got into Oxford for this Autumn and his/their school is ranked somewhere between 6-16(??) in Country wide league tables. But - and it's a BIG but - they also deal with ALL the children really well via using setting but without any sense of 'failure' if in lower sets, and I can honestly say the pastoral care is as important to them as the academic results (that being something that was utterly vital to me when chose school for them).

Do not want to out myself but feel need to be uber honest to OP - hell would freeze before any of my DC's set foot in either Godolphin & Latymer, or Latymer. I went to one of these schools and - in common with many others there, hated the cliques; the sense of 'entitlement'; the arrogance (could go on but you get gist!)

I SWORE BLIND that my DC's would NEVER go to a private school as whilst all bright, there was no way I wanted them to have even a smidgen of that 'London Day School 'Edge' that can't quite find a name for'.

Agree Latymer does not cater for girls vis sport etc vs. way it does for boys;
Agree Latymer does - on face of it - have a more 'mixed' intake, but that really is down to what another poster said; namely their parents were very savvy re moving to best areas for best state schools then supplementing that with HUGE tuition. Hate the phrase as it's a tad 'catch-all' and sounds derogatory when not meant to be, but bottom line is if you expect anything other than 'posh' kids from v middle class backgrounds then you will have a shock. Am also aware that their pastoral system really is not that great; that if a kid is bullied, the onus is as much if not more on them to 'buck up/fit in' etc than the learning & approp. discipline given to the actual bully/ies.

Having said ALL of that, I DID end up having to send DC's to private school, but WAY out of London; less 'cliquey'; much smaller classes even though school actually bigger; great house system; fantastic pastoral care. As an E.G, can observe just from own experience that whilst that 'entitlement/cliquey stuff' DOES obv still go on there; that i) they crack down on any bullying like you would not believe; ii) there are less anorexic girls (is co-ed) there now - i.e. in 2013 - than there were at school I was at in eighties (and know this is even worse now given the VAST peer etc pressure to 'fit in'); iii) the opps for both girls and boys in every area are just HUGE.

If I had a straight choice between Latymer and Harrow, would send DC to Harrow in a heartbeat.

so obviously the percentage is rising each year. but of course you're right, the child will get the same results at either of these schools

If you're really interested in Oxbridge statistics you need to trawl through the schools' leavers' destinations. Very few publish percentages - it looks as if Latymer got about 18% to Oxbridge last year and 16% the year before versus 35% at St Paul's (boys) last year and around 40% at the girls' school.

But really, what does it matter? The same children would have probably achieved the same things at either school.